@aashikai thot so too until ajinkya and pavithra told me otherwise! and the nthis 14 year old brother of mine came and told me that it depends upon the refraction of light, which is irrespective of the fact thats its planet or star.. some jazz.. argh!

hmmm.......its some theory like "planets never twinkle to the naked eye for exactly this reason. If you look at one through a magnifying telescope, though, the telescope can have better resolution than the coherently refracting length of the atmosphere. In this case, you can see the edges of the planet "wiggling.""......dunno some jazz..chckd ol...science doesnt get into my head ya..btw visit www.caferati.blogspot.com,u can post yr poems there...its brilliant. chck it:)

as pertains number 1, u actually thought it was the other way around?!ps- 2's no coincidence, it's all connected to this whole cleaning lady syndrome... n housewives in general loving those typical drama type of stories.

pps- i wonder how 3 does that?

ppps- i can personally vouch that planets do not twinkle.even though twinkling is explained on the fundamental basis of refraction, when we say 'twinkle' we imply twinkling only in the macro sense (that is in the sense of as viewed by the unaided human eye). n planets thus do not twinkle. no denying that the effects of refraction n the varying magnitude/wobbling viewing characteristics shall still remain... but that is not described as "twinkle"ing!

...3 makes me wonder... how can one even conjure such sentences...(...that can hav such implications!!!!)...my goodness. ...god help us.